Creationist survey

[pgrmdave]

We could look at the other absurdities such as how the "Earth" could BE the "Earth" if it was "formless and empty". By it's very defintion, the Earth must have a VERY SPECIFIC form and be made out of STUFF (NOT "empty") How can something that is "formless" have a "surface"?

Well, the sun has no real form, but we say it has a surface, beyond that, some people would contend that

All matter is composed of energy fields in empty space.

Energy doesn't have a form like we think of form. Not saying that you are wrong, but that your way of thinking is not the only possibility.

[pgrmdave]

A novel does not provide PROOF of anything.

I never said it was proof, merely an example, a possibility.

[Freethinker]

It is my understanding that relativity only works on a macro scale, and quantum physics only works on a micro scale. Since these things aren't all inclusive, would you really consider them wrong? What about Newtonian physics, useful, but not entirely correct?

1) YOU stated that there are "mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time". What does your reply have to do with this? Nuetonian, Relativity and QM expand on each other and/ or describe different properties. Each provides the mechanics needed at their own level and each is correct at it's own level. Each and every time.

 

Show us "mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time", not various theories. "mathmatic equations"

[Freethinker]

so if I may make the point here, we believers and nonbelievers have a whole lot more in common than some may be willing to accept.

Oh yes. a LOT more.

 

We each reject any of the thousands of god myths and for the same reasons. I merely add one more to the list of thousands, and for the same reasons. I just don't draw an imaginary line in the sand at which point I make myself stop using logic and reason. I use the same logical process for all of them.

[pgrmdave]

So what other failings does your omnipotent god have? Other than not being able to get his creation to understand what he wants to communicate to them? And at what point would lying about a process that no one knows anything about be more understandable than the facts? To the uneducated barbaric nomads of the OT, a 7 day series of finger snapping is no more understandable than stating millions of years of changes.

Assuming there was a god, and he wanted to tell us something, he would need to put it into terms that we understood, using our limitations. Try to explain relativity to a four year old, you realize that there is no way to do it without relating it to something that he or she understands already. If god was omnipotent, his difficulty communicating with us would be even greater. The fact is that the biblical account is more like creation stories of other religions of the time and of the past, very magical and mysterious, something that people were able to accept and attempt to comprehend.

[pgrmdave]

Show us "mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time", not various theories. "mathmatic equations"

consider any repeating decimal: .xxx....

multiply it by 10: x.xxx...

subtract the original value: x.xxx... - .xxx... = x

divide it by nine to get a fraction value: x/9

 

now, do this with .999... and you arrive at 9/9 = 1

[pgrmdave]

many mathematic equations are wrong when you insert zero or infinity into the variable, but because you specify that the equations are wrong at this time, you are okay with the truth, even thought they are not correct 100% of the time.

[Freethinker]

What do you mean by this? Most of the books of the New Testament were not written as scipture but later compiled togeather for the bible. Does that mean that they were more acceptable before they were in the bible, or that because they are in a religious work, they must not have any value?

You are very confused.

 

BEFORE the various texts were assembled into the final agreed product, there WAS NO BIBLE. The Gosples were written FOR the bible, not added into an existing one.

 

So "what I mean" is that there is this accumulation of texts which we call the Bible. It did not exist BEFORE these texts were written, selected, editted and combined.

 

Further that the ONLY source of knowledge for the concept of a Jesus the Christ IS the bible.

 

As such, you claim to believe in Christ, but not the bible as his perfect word. Thus I am asking for ANY contemporary eyewitness report that would provide ANY knowledge base for this belief, one that would provide ANY support to allow the claim of a biblical Jesus the Christ having existed.

 

Well?

[pgrmdave]

The gospels were written as scripture, but what about all the rest of the new testament? most of it is letters, written to early churches and people that was later compiled.

[Stargazer]

I think that part of the problem is that religion cannot be thought of scientifically, it is more emotional and instinctive (at least for most people). I think that the best example for something that can be true without being a scientific fact came from the movie Contact.

First of all, you can look for evidence that a person loves someone. It's difficult but in most cases it could br done.

Also, just because something can be true doesn't mean it is, especially not without evidence.

[infamous]

Oh yes. a LOT more.

 

We each reject any of the thousands of god myths and for the same reasons. I merely add one more to the list of thousands, and for the same reasons. I just don't draw an imaginary line in the sand at which point I make myself stop using logic and reason. I use the same logical process for all of them.

No, but you'll draw a line through my post and only quote part of the thought I was expressing. If you like to quote my posts, please don't do so out of context.

[pgrmdave]

First of all, you can look for evidence that a person loves someone. It's difficult but in most cases it could br done.

Like what? You could prove that somebody acted in a certain manner, but to prove an emotion...how?

[Freethinker]

Well, the sun has no real form,

You really don't have a clue do you? In case it comes as a suprise, the sun is basically spherical. That IS a "form". (as opposed to the "form" of a square)

 

Form - the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material (WWWebster)

some people would contend that Energy doesn't have a form

And those people would show that they understand what FORM means.

like we think of form.

Who's this WE?

Not saying that you are wrong, but that your way of thinking is not the only possibility.

1) based on factual data from WWWebster, I am RIGHT.

 

2) yes, that does not mean that others have "right" or correct thinking. Some believe in gods.

[Stargazer]

Very good point pgrmdave; and by the way, just for the record; I'm a bliever, I also believe in natural selection, also in most current scientific data, and the Big Bang, so if I may make the point here, we believers and nonbelievers have a whole lot more in common than some may be willing to accept.

Yes, I've heard people say that their beliefs that are not supported are on the same level as something that is wellsupported by evidence. They seem to believe that religion and science are the same. I'm not sure why. Is this what you are saying, as well?

[pgrmdave]

Which part of the sun is spherical? The corona isn't, it's constantly fluctuating, the outer layers of the sun (photosphere, chromosphere) are also very active - prominences and spicules, there is no definite shape. Does an electron have form? How about a quark? A photon?

[Stargazer]

Like what? You could prove that somebody acted in a certain manner, but to prove an emotion...how?

Prove... not so much. Evidence regarding how the brain function in different situations, how a person acts, etc. Obviously not solid evidence, but one could make a pretty good guess as to how a person feels.

[Freethinker]

I never said it was proof, merely an example, a possibility.

Yes well, we see that you do not like being forced to deal with nasty things like PROOF. I have asked for it many times and you can't seem to find any or even have the integrety to acknowledge it. Instead you take these red herring course changes to hide behind.

 

How about actually providing proof when you make a claim. Especially if you are specifically asked for some?

If you are ready to admit that parts of the bible are bogus, please supply the list of which parts are bogus and which aren't and the external rerfeence source that verifies this listing.

You claim "Christ and God are" sources of information on themselves. Please provide verifyable resources they have PERSONALLY provided outside of the bible.

Please show us "mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time".

Once again, show us ANY OTHER contemporary eyewitness source which confirms and the biblical Jesus existed, even as a specific personage, outside of the bible. Show us why you have ANY concept of a biblical Jesus if you do not use the bible as the source.